Prilosec Lawsuit Plaintiff Says She Needs Kidney Transplant

A California woman who is awaiting a kidney transplant has filed a new Prilosec lawsuit in California federal court. The February 23rd filing accuses the drug’s manufacturers of failing to warn patients that long-term use of the proton pump inhibitor could harm their kidneys.

According to a report published by the California Record, Penelope Costamagna used Prilosec to treat heartburn and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). She went on to suffer serious physical injuries, including kidney damage that will require transplantation, allegedly due to treatment with the medication. She claims that Procter & Gamble Co., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and other defendants failed in their duty to warn patients and doctors about the risks and side effects allegedly associated with the continued use of Prilosec.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Lawsuits Mount

According to RXInjuryHelp.com, a growing number of lawsuits have been filed in recent months over kidney injuries allegedly linked to proton pump inhibitor use. The litigation was sparked by an accumulating body of research suggesting that long-term exposure to Prilosec and other drugs in this class can harm the kidneys, leading to acute interstitial nephritis, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury and renal failure. Plaintiffs pursuing these lawsuits claim that the manufacturers of Nexium, Prilosec, PrevAcid and other proton pump inhibitors have long been aware of reports linking the drugs to adverse renal events, but concealed these risks from the public and failed to issue appropriate safety warnings.

Plaintiffs had recently requested that a multidistrict litigation be established in a single U.S. District Court for all federally-filed proton pump inhibitor lawsuits, in order to allow the claims to undergo coordinated pretrial proceedings. However, the petition was denied last month by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Among other things, the Panel found that there were too few pending cases to warrant the creation of a multidistrict litigation, and suggested that inclusion of competing pharmaceutical companies and multiple drugs would complicate case management.

It is not yet clear if plaintiffs will make another centralization request if more cases are filed. Alternatively, they might seek separate litigations for each drug involved in the litigation.